Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds detail about the returned data (counts, amounts), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this operation has no side effects or that it is a pure preview, though the annotations imply that. The description is consistent with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that lists the key output components without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return values. It lists the main items but lacks detail on structure or types (e.g., whether amounts are numeric, how counts are formatted). Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the listed items, it is reasonably complete, but an agent might need more specifics on the exact response format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides a full description for survey_id ('Survey id (see list_surveys, or the survey_id returned by a create tool)'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline. The parameter is straightforward, and the schema is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates the tool provides a preview of closing settlement, listing specific items (accepted/rejected counts, held amount, charge, release-back). It distinguishes from the sibling close_survey by implying it's a preview, though it does not explicitly name the alternative. The verb 'would settle' implies a hypothetical, which aligns with the title 'Preview close settlement'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus close_survey or other related tools. The description does not mention that this should be used before actually closing a survey, nor does it state any prerequisites or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the title alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.